Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Yet another fantastic
film based off of a novel by Author Jack Ketchum is the 2007 Horror/Thriller
“The Girl Next Door” (not to be confused with the 2004 Comedy of the same title). The story of “The Girl Next Door” is loosely
based off of the real life murder (and torture) of a young girl named Sylvia
Likens.

The film is told in narration form by the
adult version of our main protagonist.
Our story is set in 1958, and our protagonist is the young David
Moran. David becomes infatuated with a
young girl named Meg, who just moved next door to him along with her younger
sister Susan. Meg and Susan’s parents
perished in a tragic car accident, and she was sent to live with their mom’s
cousin, Ruth Chandler. On the outside,
Ruth appears to be calm and fun: she lets the kids in the neighborhood wander
into her house any time they want and gives them cigarettes and beer. However, the way she treats her three sons
and the other neighborhood kids, is the complete opposite of how she treats Meg
and her younger sister. Ruth verbally
and physically abuses Meg and Susan in front of her sons and the other children
and is real casual about it; if Meg tries to defend herself—or her crippled
sister Susan—she is punished in the most physical and horrific ways
imaginable. She is beaten, tied up,
stripped naked, and humiliated in front of her cousins and friends. Mrs. Chandler even let’s one of her son’s and
other boys in the neighborhood rape her and invites other kids to come and
watch. She even uses a blowtorch to give
Meg a clitorectomy (look it up on your own, because I am NOT explaining what that is).
Now David struggles with the ultimate problem of what can he do to help his
friend?

Actress Blanche Baker plays a straight up psycho!

So you know how in my review of
Jack Ketchum’s “The Woman” I said the Cleeks were the Most Dysfunctional Family
I have ever seen in a film? Well Ruth
Chandler is definitely the most despicable, sadistic, and Most Evil character I
have ever seen in a film. The fact that
she was based off of a real person absolutely terrifies me. The woman Ruth Chandler’s character was based
off of is

Gertrude Baniszewski

named Gertrude Baniszewski and just as I’ve said all those nasty
things about Ruth Chandler being the Most Evil Character I’ve ever seen in a
film, I believe Gertrude Baniszewsi is the Most Evil person who has ever
lived! I’ve read most of the “Encyclopedia
of Serial Killers” and I think she’s worst than Charles Manson, worst than
Albert Fish, worst than Ted Bundy, worst then John Wayne Gacy. I am absolutely
flabbergasted as to how this woman was not put to death by the state of Indiana
and somehow managed to get paroled after committing these horrific and shocking
crimes, but I digress. The actress who played
Ruth Chandler is Blanche Baker, and one thing that’s great about her
performance is just how nonchalant she is about what she’s doing. She is committing the most serious crimes
imaginable to a child—in front of other children—and she looks like she should
careless and doesn’t think she’ll ever get caught. Her hatred for Meg and the crimes she commits
against her seem entirely unmotivated and that she’s only doing these things
because she feels like she can. That’s a
pretty evil and horrifying character in my eyes.

Blythe Auffarth plays the role of Meg
in Jack Kethcum's "The Girl Next Door"

Then we
have the character Meg, played by actress Blythe Auffarth. Auffarth gives a good performance as well,
and I applaud her because this is not an easy role to play; the helpless
tortured girl. I know I’m just
nitpicking on this next part but, Blythe Auffarth seems too old to be playing a
teenager. Auffarth was 22-Years-Old when
“The Girl Next Door” was filmed, the person her character was based off, Sylvia
Likens, was sixteen. I understand why
they had to cast an older actress for this role, because there’s no way you
would ever want to cast minor for this type of role. It’s kind of like how Stanley Kubrick cast—then
28-year-old—Malcolm McDowell to play the role of 15-year-old Alex DeLarge in “A
Clockwork Orange”. Like I said, I know
I’m nitpicking, but when all the other kids in the film are between 10-15 it’s
really hard to believe that this character claims to be a teenager when they
are very obviously much older.

Young David Moran struggles with what to do

Then
we have the character young David Moran.
Young David has to deal with a lot of difficult issues that are better
suited for adults. Unfortunately, the
adults don’t give him any real good advice. He goes to his parents, and he is
told that it’s none of their business to interfere with other families domestic
problems. He goes to the Police and they
pretty much tell him the same thing, by the time anyone decides to listen to
him or help Meg it’s too late. One thing
I like about his character is that he is put a situation that far too many
people are placed in at some point in their lives. I believe that everyone has known at least
one person that has been abused at some point in their lives. When we are teenagers, our closest friends
confide in us their darkest and most tragic secrets, and suddenly we are more
qualified at fourteen to help our friends solve their problems then a trained
professional or responsible adult.
David’s story is also tragic because he wants to help Meg, but he’s
scared to and doesn’t know what he can do.
I hate it in films when a good
character stands by and watches others abuse a helpless victim/character,
but in David’s case I can forgive it.
What teenager would know what to do if he was put in that
situation? How do they overcome their
fears and know what’s the right thing to do?
All David wants to do is help his friend, but no one seems like they
want to help. Even when he tries to do
something right on his own, it just ends up causing more pain and hardships for
the people he’s trying to help.

Meg get's savagely abused throughout the film

Besides
great characters and a terrifying story, this film also offers a great
retrospect into the “Social-Norms” of its setting. The first time David witnesses Meg being disciplined by Mrs. Chandler he is told
that it a “Domestic Matter” and that it’s “none of his business”. It’s sad to believe that this was once
considered typical; hell I still think this is typical for what happens a lot
today. There’s a scene in the film where
David and one of Meg’s cousins see her telling a Police officer about the abuse
she suffers and all the cop does, initially, is show up and ask a few
questions. Once the police officer
leaves, Meg is beaten by her cousins, while her cruel Aunt ponders a most
horrendous punishment that does not fit the crime. Seeing how nobody in an authority position
tries to stop Ruth Chandler and her sons until it’s too late is almost as scary
as the crimes they commit against Meg.

By the way, I’ve noticed that
Jack Ketchum likes to have his female character’s tied up in basements in his
stories. Also in a couple of his
novels/films that were adopted from his
works his antagonists are unfeeling and very monotone, and their only
motivation appears to be that they’re just really evil or really bored; anyone
else notice that?

“The
Girl Next Door” is another great horror film adapted from the literary works of
Jack Ketchum, if you ever get a chance to see a movie based off of his works or
read one of his books I seriously recommend you do it. If you want to read my review of Ketchum’s
“The Woman” just click the link below.

Following the advent of television in the early 1950’s,
Hollywood was forced to face its first serious competitor in popular
entertainment. In order to combat the easily accessible, and often light
weight, fare that enthralled television audiences, Hollywood struck back in a
big way with its new favorite trump card; the epic. In an era before premium
channels and mini-series, television could offer comedies and melodramas on par
with Tinseltown’s finest, but it simply could not compete with the sheer grandeur
of cinema’s period pieces. As cinema saw a return of box-office record
breakers, Hollywood responded by releasing a seemingly endless stream of
historical epics. Unfortunately, many of these films relied more heavily upon
special effects and exotic costumes than dialogue and plot development, and
have aged poorly as a result. Despite the fact that many films of this era are
now considered more camp than art, a few select films stand out from the trend,
including one of the most powerful films of the genre, Ben-Hur.

Over time, Ben-Hur has
become engrained in American pop-culture and inspired countless other films.
The film has been parodied and imitated so often that at first glance its many
twists and turns seem cliché. Upon closer observation, however, it becomes
evident that this is in fact a masterfully crafted work that ‘they don’t make
‘em like’ anymore. Despite the limited special effects of the time in which it
was released, the film is able to successfully transport viewers across a vast
scope of first century locations ranging from the market-places of Judea, to
the tents of Arab nomads, to the palaces of Rome. The famous chariot race in
particular remains a cinematic landmark. Not only does the scene utilize expert
stunts and breathtaking action, but it also excellently summarizes the central
conflict between the film’s hero and villain.

Actor Charlton Heston plays the title character Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur was
released at the tail-end of the historical epic craze which also included such
classics as The Ten Commandments and Spartacus. Like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur featured leading man Charlton Heston
and a cast of thousands. Unlike The Ten
Commandments, however, this film focuses upon the personal struggle of an
ordinary man forced to withstand extraordinary circumstances. The film
chronicles the efforts of a Judean prince to reclaim his former life and attain
vengeance after being convicted of a crime that he did not commit. After
refusing to act as an informant for the occupying Roman forces, Judah Ben-Hur is
betrayed by his former friend Messala and sent to the galleys as sentence for
an attempted murder charge. Messala openly admits that the charge is false but
still carries the charge even further by arresting Judah’s mother and sister as
co-conspirators. Through a combination of persistence and circumstance Judah is
eventually able to escape and make his way home with a new identity. Upon his
return, he immediately pursues obtaining revenge against Messala and freedom
for his mother and sister. Although he eventually does gain vengeance, his
victory is at best bittersweet, as he continues to blame himself for the arrest
of his mother and sister who have contracted leprosy and been banished in his
absence. This bitterness eventually consumes him and alienates those closest to
him. It is only after Judah learns to move on with his life and let go of his
hate that he is able to finally achieve redemption.

Messala in "Ben-Hur" (1959)

One of the most difficult aspects of completing the screenplay reportedly
was resolving the motivation of villain, Messala. In the film, Messala betrays
his childhood friend after the latter refuses to act as an informant for the
Roman Empire. The writers found it difficult to believe that a man would betray
his friend over politics and attempted to include a gay subtext into the script
in order to explain Messala’s seemingly over blown reaction. Personally, I was
shocked to read that the writers would not see the significance and divisive
effects of politics a mere fifteen years after the end of the Second World War.
This is particularly striking when one considers the fact that Hollywood was in
the midst of the McCarthy era, which saw the destruction of countless
relationships and livelihoods, particularly in the motion picture industry, as
the result of a political ‘witch-hunt’.

Ultimately, the most compelling aspect of the film is the
protagonist’s psychological struggle after he regains his freedom. While
attaining his freedom was his immediate goal, achieving it is an empty victory
because he cannot share it with his family. Even after finally obtaining
vengeance against Messala, Judah is still a tormented man. He isolates himself
from his former slave turned love interest, Esther, and lashes out at her each
time that she offers him consolation. At one point, Esther becomes so
frustrated with Judah that she compares him to Messala and says she cannot love
the man he has become. Although his argument with Esther does lead him to
question his decisions, it is not until he witnesses the crucifixion of Christ,
another wrongly convicted man, that he gains a sense of perspective, which
ultimately leads to his redemption.

Ben-Hur meets Jesus

The presence of Jesus is a recurring theme that puts the story
into a historical context without undermining its central conflicts. In many
ways, Jesus is a foil to Judah; both are citizens of an occupied country who
are persecuted for trying to do what they believe is right. The dignity that Jesus
exhibits during his trial and crucifixion directly contrasts the obsessive rage
that consumes Judah after his own conviction. Their acquaintance eventually
comes full circle after Judah recognizes Jesus as the stranger who gave him
water during his journey to the galleys. He asks a fellow spectator what Jesus
could have done to deserve such a fate. The man explains the prophecy that
Jesus was meant to fulfill by taking “the world of our sins onto himself” and says
that it was for “this beginning” that he was born. It is at this moment that
Judah is finally able to see the possibility for a new beginning at even the
most tragic endings and determines to rise above the bitterness of his past.

I chose to review this film in honor of Easter, but recommend it
to viewers of any faith to watch during any season. Although the film does
feature a religious motif, its central themes of family, hope, patriotism, and
justice are universal. The characters’ struggle to maintain their personal
lives in an increasingly politicized world continues to be relevant in today’s
world of economic and social uncertainty. Despite the advances of modern
special effects, the action sequences, sets, and costumes remain truly epic and
cannot be matched. At the very least, I recommend this film to any viewer
interested in seeing how truly great movies are made and to those curious to
see what exactly they ‘don’t make ‘em like’ anymore.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Confessions of a Film Junkie: “Classics” A Review of “Un Chien
Andalou”

By: Lauren Ennis

Lauren Ennis
"Miss-E"

According to Webster’s Dictionary’s
definition, surrealism is “a style of art and literature developed principally
in the 20th century stressing the subconscious or nonrational
significance of imagery”. In less clinical terms, surrealism was the spark that
started the modern art movement in the early 20th century, which eventually
led to the formation of modern art as we know it today. Surrealism was an
artistic movement in which artists attempted to reveal the absurdity of life by
juxtaposing unrelated and contradictory images. For many artists, surrealism
was an outlet through which they could rebel against the hypocrisy of society,
particularly the senselessness and horrors of World War I. Although such a
malleable movement would seem suited to a multitude of mediums, surrealism was
most often applied to the visual arts, largely due to the constraints of plot
and character development that dominate film and literature.

A
handful of films did succeed in defying the confines of their medium and
shocking audiences by telling their stories through‘dream logic’ rather than a
linear plot. One of the most popular of these surrealist films was the 1929
silent short film Un Chien Andalou (French
for ‘an Andalusian dog’). The film was a collaboration between painter Salvador
Dali and director Luis Buenel, which reportedly began when Buenel told Dali of
a dream he had in which a cloud sliced through the moon “like a razor-blade
slicing through an eye”. Dali responded by discussing his own bizarre dreams,
and Buenel concluded that the assortment of images would be ideal for a film.

Film Poster from 1929

The
artists maintained that the film does not have a plot and is instead meant to
be viewed as a rebellion against the conventions of plot. The film opens with a
man restlessly looking out at the sky from his balcony as he sharpens a razor.
In what is perhaps the film’s best known image, the scene moves to a woman
calmly staring into the camera as the man holds her head in place and proceeds
to slice her eye with the razor. Despite the advances of modern special
effects, the scene still manages to shock as the camera captures both the
initial cut and the aftermath of fluid oozing from the deflated eye (actually
the eye of a dead calf). According to the title card, the film then flashes
ahead “eight years later” and depicts the same man as he watches the now blind
woman be run down by traffic outside his house. The man then begins a series of
arguments and altercations with another woman that comprise the majority of the
film.

The Most Iconic Scene from the Film

Although the filmmakers explicitly stated
that the film was nothing more than succession of unrelated images, it is
possible for audiences to form a plot through their own interpretation of the
images. Personally, I interpreted the film to be about the vicious cycles that
often compose human relationships. From this perspective, the slicing of the
woman’s eye is a symbol for the man lashing out at her in his restlessness, and
attacking one of her most vulnerable parts. When the scene shifts to the man
crashing his bicycle while wearing a nun’s habit, it could represent his
emasculation and lack of direction as a result of his actions, or (given
Buenel’s contempt for the Catholic Church) as the result of the constraints of
life under the influence of a flawed religious system.

Ant Hands!

Later, a
hole full of ants appears in the man’s hand as he watches the woman from the
first scene (now blind), poking at a severed hand with her walking stick. This
scene represents the void in the man’s life after he has hurt the woman and the
pestilence that is created by his inability to fill that void. He then
gleefully watches as the woman is run down by a car, which represents the
destruction of his memories and the torment that they inflict upon him. Now
confident after his victory over his past, the man proceeds to make sexual
advances towards a young woman who appears to be his current girlfriend. She is
disgusted by his reaction to the other woman’s death and rebuffs his advances.
He continues his attempt to seduce her but is held back by two pianos that
suddenly appear tied to his shoulders, representing the ties from his past that
prevent him from moving on with their relationship. The young woman runs from
the room and shuts the man’s infected hand in the door. After a brief pause,
she opens the door and sees that he is not trapped by the door and is actually
lying on the bed, asleep. Her fear and attempt to escape from the man
demonstrate the fear that his past actions instill in her and her inability to reconcile
his past actions with their present relationship.

Hello Dali! (Pictured Right)

She leaves the building and the camera returns to
the bedroom as the man engages in a duel with a younger version of himself that
is revolted by the man he has become. The man shoots the younger version of
himself, effectively severing his ties with his more innocent past. The young
woman returns to the apartment after the shooting and they resume arguing. In
one of the most bizarre images in the film, the man points at the woman,
causing her armpit hair to appear on his face in what appears to be an example
of him calling attention to her physical flaws. She becomes furious and storms
out of the apartment. The scene then shifts to a beach where the young woman
meets a new man. This man shows her the time on his watch, warning her that
their acquaintance cannot last forever. Despite his warning, she takes his arm
and they walk along the beach. They briefly pause when she discovers the first
man’s belongings then continue on their path, revealing her desire to move on
from her past with the first man. The film closes with an image of the couple
one year later buried in the sand, as their relationship has been buried in the
sands of time.

Director Luis Bunuel

Un Chien Andalou
surpassed the odds and became a success despite the fact that it was a short
film reportedly devoid of any meaning. It eventually became a cult classic in
art house cinema and is now considered a landmark in cinema history. This film
marked the beginning of the career of director Luis Buenel who later went on to
make such classics as “Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” and “Belle Du Jour”,
and was one of the first independent films to achieve mainstream success.
Through their collaborative “prank”, Buenel and Dali created a work of art that
has maintained an ability to shock and a sense of intellectual mutiny that
continues to awe and inspire today.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Someone’s Knocking at
the Door”.

By: Brian Cotnoir

Add this to the list
of the Most Unpleasant Films I’ve ever sat through in just one sitting. The thing that led me to want to watch this
film was it boasting on one of its movie posters that it is the: “Most Depraved
Film of the 21st Century”. That’s probably a fair title to give this
film. I mean with multiple graphic scenes depicting rape and mutilation it’s
impossible to not feel uncomfortable or uneasy while watching this film.

The
film I’m talking about is “Someone’s Knocking at the Door”, and I have to be
perfectly honest with everyone: despite the graphicness of this film and all
the unpleasant things that happen in the film, I still thought it was a good
film. The film is about a group of Med
Students in College—most of them who have some pretty bad drug addictions—and one
night one of the students, Ray, is attacked in his dorm after shooting up an
unknown narcotic. Ray is brutally raped
to death by an unknown attacker, and now the police are out to find out who
killed him. Ray’s angry and grieving
mother suspects it was one Ray’s friends who did it, so the police bring in his
friends to question them and see if any of them knew who could have killed
Ray. As it turns out the students broke
into a records room on campus and uncovered an experimental drug called
“Taldon”. Ray and most of his friends
shot it up in the room and later uncovered a file that the drug was created in
1973 by a former Professor at the college to treat a schizophrenic couple named
John & Wilma Hopper. As the students
look more into the file they find out that John & Wilma were both serial
rapists and raped all of their victims to death—including the professor who
created Taldon—and now some of them believe that the drug may have been what
caused John & Wilma to commit their violent sexual crimes. After find out this fact the med students
& friends become fearful that the drug they injected into their bodies may
have caused one of them might of unknowingly committed the sexual assault that
killed their friend Ray, or maybe John & Wilma (who reportedly escaped
after killing the Professor) have come back to finish what they started.

Holy
shnikes where do I even begin to dissect this film? I guess I should probably start with the
story. The story is actually quite
creative. It’s violent as all hell, but creative. It’s also mysterious and it’s terrifying. I
don’t want to give away too many details or spoilers about this story. It has an original story, and there is a lot
mystery and build-up towards the end and I would hate to give away the
ending. There is a twist ending to
it—that is vaguely reminiscent of the ending to “Sucker Punch”—and I didn’t
think it was bad, but I can easily understand how some people could call it a
copout ending.

Actor Noah Segan plays Justin in the film

The actors in
this film are also gave competent performances. No one’s really bad, but none of them are
really anything special. Noah Segan is
probably the most notable actor in this film, and for those of you who read my
review of “Deadgirl”, know that I think he get’s type-casted into playing the
role of the film’s “Biggest a$$ hole”, but I was actually surprised that he
wasn’t in this film. His character, Justin,
is pretty douchy at times, but he’s not the most deplorable character in the
film. Most of the film is told from his
perspective, and I actually like how they told his story in the film; it was
unique, it was unexpected, and this probably the only time, so far that, I’ve
ever liked Noah Segan in a film (by the way did you also know that he was the
voice of Henry on the Nickelodeon sketch cartoon show “KaBlam!”?).

Well that sure was unpleasant.

I felt that this film was well
made even with the excessive violence and told it’s story in a way that was
mysterious but comprehendible. If you’re
a sick f*ck like myself and love to torture yourself with movies that have unpleasant
imagery and graphic violence then this film is for you, other than that you will
not like this film.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

So on Friday March 15, 2013 the Orpheum Theatre in Foxboro, MA hosted a Special Double Feature showing of "Repo: The Genetic Opera" and "The Devils Carnival". At this event was the director of both films, Darren Lynn Bousman (who also directed Saw II, III, and IV, and the Mother's Day Re-make) and Terrance Zdunich who co-wrote and performed in both films (Grave Robber in Repo & Lucifer in "The Devils Carnival". For those who do not know Repo The Genetic Opera started out as an idea Terrance had and it grew to a 10 minute opera performed by him and friends in clubs and small theaters. Darren saw the play and wanted to direct a stage version of it and from there it blossomed into a movie production that many fans were behind. The studios were not. Terrance and Darren fought to release REPO and only got a limited release in very few theaters. The fans came out in droves, sold out many showings and are still doing this as REPO is shown in theaters on special occasions like this: The tour of Devil's Carnival, the next film of Terrance and Darren's in the same vein as REPO: A Gothic movie musical with lots to offer in sing along's and shout outs most appreciated in a packed theater.

Please Enjoy our Commentary/Clips from the Show as well as some pictures of some awesome Hardcore Cos-Players.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

A while back I watched
two Horror films (courtesy of Netflix) that were just awful. The films were
called “Naked Fear” and “Necrosis”. So
why have I decided to group them together instead of giving them each a
separate review? Well for one thing I
didn’t think I had enough material to talk about why I didn’t like both films,
but besides that I noticed that while watching both films they had one thing in
common; both films had the same leading actress. The actress I’m talking about is a pretty
young red head by the name of Danielle De Luca.
Danielle De Luca is an unknown actress
who has been featured in 14 straight to DVD horror films since 2006. So I have decided to give you a two-for-one
special on Danielle De Luca this week.
The purpose of this review was more to bash the films that Danielle De
Luca has appeared in rather than making fun of her as an actress. I mean her acting isn’t terrible; I think it has more to do with the films she has appeared
in. If you know any others films that
Danille De Luca appears in that you thought were good just let me know in the
comment section.

Naked Fear (2007)

This is the first film
I ever saw starring Danielle De Luca, she plays a girl named Diana who leaves
her home in Texas and moves to a rural town in New Mexico to work as a
stripper. The town and the club were a lot worse than what Diana thought she
was getting into, but unfortunately no one will lend her the money to get back
to Texas, and she barely makes any money at her job as it is. One night her roommate suggests that she try hooking to make some extra cash. After resisting for a while she eventually
gives in. Unfortunately for Diana, her
first client turns out to be a serial killer who beats her unconscious, strips
her naked and flies her out into the middle of the wilderness so he can hunt
her.

This
film’s plot is based off the crimes of American serial killer, Robert Hansen
who did abduct prostitutes and fly them out to the Alaskan wilderness to hunt
them, and it is also almost identical to the plot of the 1994 film “Surviving
the Game”, but instead of Ice-T being hunted by Rutger Hauer and Gary Busey, we
get a naked Danielle De Luca being hunted by some unknown guy, whose character
name I could not remember for most of the film. I had no problem with Danielle
De Luca being naked for more than half the movie, and that’s really the only
positive thing I have to say about this film.
The story to this film has been done-to-death more times than I can
count. There’s nothing new, or original,
or exciting about it. It’s a generic
film with a predictable plot and no action or excitement. This film stretches the truths of reality way
too many times. I want to know how she
doesn’t freeze to death the first night with no clothes or shelter, or how come
when she knocks out the guy hunting her the first time she didn’t take his
rifle or make sure he was dead, and how the hell after days without any food
and barely any time to rest she somehow manages to survive being run over by a
van and is able to steal it from the owner and drive to civilization before
passing out. The ending to “Naked Fear”
makes a little bit of sense, but it
does still stretch the truths of reality.
There’s just nothing spectacular I can say about this film.

Necrosis (or Blood Snow) (2009)

Sometimes called "Blood Snow"

Another horror film I
saw starring Danielle De Luca was “Necrosis”.
The ultimate problem with this film is that it tries so badly to be like
other—much better—horror films that it loses its central focus and just ends up
sucking so much! Besides not having a central focus to the story of the film,
the characters are all poorly established, and the film spends more time trying
to rip off other films rather than trying to be good on its own. Just from the opening scene you get the sense
that they tried way too hard to make this a good
film. The second scene in the film is
the most blatant rip off of the opening scene to “The Shining” I have ever seen,
and that is just the first of many fails.

The
plot to “Necrosis” is the following: A group of recent college graduates are
heading up to a cabin in the mountains to for a week of snowmobiling and
fun. As
it just so happens there is a huge blizzard that supposed to be coming
through, and despite all the warnings the six friends receive from the locals
they decide to ignore them and head up to the mountains. But this just isn’t
any mountain they’re on; as it turns out the same cabin they’re staying in is
on the same mountain where the Donner Party Massacre happened! So the six friends are, obviously, going to be killed by the zombies of the Donner Party,
right? Wrong! They die by either freezing to death or gunshot
wounds!

This
film really pisses me off because throughout the first half of the film they go
out of their way to establish that the mountain they’re staying on was the same
one that “Donner Party” got stranded on, and then the Donner Party Zombies
aren’t even the bad guys in the film, it’s themselves!There are even a few scenes of the cast
having nightmares about being eaten by zombies, so you would think that the
film was foreshadowing events that were to come in the film, but no!Instead they wasted time on other things.

Danielle De Luca & James Kyson Lee

The
other major problem with this film is it fails to establish its characters
properly, our Hero (if we can even
call him that) has like a half-dozen different background stories; he was a med
student, he quit to become a writer, he’s also a master mechanic, he was
engaged a few months ago, etc.Jesus
Christ, what can’t this guy do?Then
there’s Danielle De Luca’s character, Samantha, who is revealed to be 2-months pregnant
half way through the friggin` movie!What effect does this have on her character or the films plot?
Absolutely, nothing her character decides to keep it a secret from her
boyfriend—who we later find out is a schizophrenic—and ends up getting killed
by him before she can ever tell him.So
thank you movie for deciding to invest us in this twist-to-the-plot and leaving it unfulfilled!Thank you so VERY much.

RESPECT MICHAEL BERRYMAN!!!

The
worst thing about this film is what they did to poor Michael Berryman.Michael Berryman is a Cult-Horror Movie
legend and it angered me so much that this film did not let him live up to the
potential we would normally expect from an actor like him..I don’t even think he took this film that
seriously, because he put so little effort into his character, and I honestly
think this film was just another paycheck to him.He’s just awful in this film.So do yourself a favor do NOT see “Necrosis”
it is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen, and it is just too stupid
to be comprehended by sane human beings.I have half a mind to go up to this film’s crew and smack them all
across the face with a shovel!For Shame
on them all.FOR SHAME!

Thursday, March 7, 2013

I once heard another
film critic say that “[‘Michael’] is going to be the next ‘[A] Serbian Film”.
Those who read my review of “A Serbian Film” know that I thought the movie was
well made, and I went into detail about the scenes of graphic violence throughout
the film. I didn’t find the film really
to be all that shocking, but I know many people who do and shutter in fear at
the mere mention of the film’s title. So
my morbid curiosity was more than enough to motivate me to sit through the 2011
film “Michael” and see whether or not it was as shocking—or worst than—“A Serbian Film”. I’ve reached two
conclusions: Either everyone who saw this film is just a total wuss or I have
become completely desensitized to everything.

The film tells the story of an
insurance salesman named Michael who on the outside seems like a quite,
harmless, reclusive man who keeps to himself and doesn’t really like to be
bothered with other people. However,
Michael has a dark secret. In his home—which is heavily fortified—he keeps a
young boy hostage as a sex slave.
Michael keeps the boy locked up all day in a secret room in his basement
and only lets him out at night to have dinner with him and watch
television. The film mostly focuses on
the difficulties and steps Michael takes to insure that no one finds out about
the boy, and how he tries give the boy a normal
life and how he makes himself seem like he’s a normal man.

This film is absolutely nothing like
“A Serbian Film”. Not once in the film
do they ever show Michael sexually abusing the boy. It is implied
in the film that the boy was kidnapped and that Michael keeps him locked up as
his sex slave, but it is never fully established that that is the case and, in
my opinion, the story is open up to many different interpretations. Since it is only implied that Michael keeps
the boy as a sex slave the graphicness of the scenes of abuse are open to minds
of viewer of the film. I didn’t find the
implications to be particularly shocking, and therefore I never felt like the
boy was any real danger. There’s a scene
where we see Michael take the boy on an outdoor outing where there are other
people around and at no point does the boy try to run away or inform someone
else to say that he’s been kidnapped or that he is in danger. Also, the young boy in the film doesn’t appear
to be bothered by the abuse at all. I
don’t want to sound offensive—I may be totally off on this assumption—and I
apologize if this statement offends anyone: but is the boy’s character in the
film supposed to be Autistic? His
character kind of shows some symptoms, but I don’t really know. He acts like it’s just another part of his
daily routine in the film and we rarely see him speak or break from a bleak
monotone expression. The seriousness and severity of his situation just sort of
goes away.

This film's better than "Michael"; see it.

I’ll break
it down for you like this: there’s a Norwegian film I saw called “The King of
Devils Island” and part of the story deals with one of the young boys being
sexually abused by one of the schools disciplinarians. Even though there are no scenes in the “King
of Devils Island” that depict the boy being sexually assaulted by the
disciplinarian the boy expresses fear and panic every time the disciplinarian
is near and we even get a few scenes of him crying after leaving the
disciplinarians private room. Now
compare that to the boy in “Michael” who just seems to shrug it off like it’s
not that big of a deal. To me Michael comes more off as an over-protective
parent in the film rather than as a sadistic pedophile, and that annoys
me. The film shows Michael in a way that
almost makes him seem nurturing and caring, but he’s a God d@mn pedophile; we’re
not supposed to like him or see him portrayed as a human being. He’s so calm
and well-mannered and he doesn’t even yell at the boy.

Another problem
with this film is there is not a lot of dialogue spoken in this film. The film
depends on a lot of atmosphere in the
film to establish the tone of the film, and I think that just makes things more
confusing for the people watching the film.
The atmosphere in this film is good, but it just leaves you sitting
there with so many questions. Most of
the notes I took while watching the film were questions that I had about the
story. I actually had to look up a lot
of things about this film so I could try to understand the story better. For each question I had answered about
something that went on in the film “Michael” there was about five other
questions that went unanswered.

This is Michael

This film is terrible at
establishing plot and characters. I’m
going to be honest I thought that Michael was the name of the young boy, not
the adult. The boy’s name is actually
Wolfgang (according to IMDB), but I don’t recall his name ever being mentioned
at any point in the film. Even Michael,
the first time I heard someone call him by his first name in the film was about
2/3 of the way through the film. They
really should have chosen some better ways to introduce the characters.

Another problem I had with this film was
that the editing was very choppy. There
are countless scenes in the film that last 5-10 seconds that really don’t have
any relevance to the plot and then jump to another scene. The style of filmmaking that the film’s
director, Markus Schleinzer, used was very similar to the same style of film
making used by Danish film director Lars Von Trier. There’s a lot of scene jumping, no music, and
lots of random scenes that don’t seem to go anywhere or hold any importance to
the plot.

Michael tries to lure another potential victim

The only actually “shocking” scene I found
in the film was when they were having dinner and then Michael stood up whipped
out his penis and pointed a knife at the boy and said “This is my dick, and
this is my knife; which one should I stick in you?” (To which the boy replied
nonchalantly “the knife”). The
film does have a few good scenes to add to its story.There’s a part in the film where Michael
tries to abduct another young boy so the other boy can have a playmate (and
more likely so he can have another boy to abuse).There’s another part where Michael goes on
ski vacation with some friends so he just locks the boy up with extra food for
a week and hopes for the best.There’s
even a part where Michael tries to have sex with a woman, and it was just
really funny.

Whether
or not this film is good is totally up to you.
This is definitely one of those films where you are going to have to see
it yourself and form your own opinion.
It’s not a bad film, but it’s far from being great film. Is it controversial and shocking? I don’t
think so. I found it to be mostly confusing so I didn’t really care much for
it, but I can also understand why someone might actually think this is a good
film. If you want more details then just
watch the film “Michael” yourself, and let me know what you think about
it. It is filmed in German, so you’re
probably going to have to watch it with subtitles on (unless you already speak
German, of course).

Saturday, March 2, 2013

So I’ve been writing
for this blog for quite some time now, and really not much has changed; Each
week I post a review of what film psychologically damaged me the most that week
and you sadists read it and take
pleasure in my torment. I’m only kidding
of course. This blog would not be where
it is today without you—my loyal readers—to keep me going, and I thank you
all. But still, the premise to my blog
is pretty basic. I review an awful movie
and go of an angry and detailed rant on why I hated it. Occasionally, I have been known to review and
recommend good movies as well, but those are really more of my own opinions
rather than an actual “confessions” so this week I decided to share with you
all some of my personal experiences from watching films and let you know some
of the hidden truths behind this blog. I’ve
listed them in no particular order and I hope you all enjoy them. Thanks

Brian (“The Film Junkie”) \m/

1.)I don’t think “The Godfather” is as good as people
say it is.

This one surprises a lot of people
when I tell them, but it’s true I don’t think “The Godfather” is as good as
people say it is. And I just want to
clarify, I don’t hate “The Godfather” or think it’s a bad movie, I just think
it’s a little bit overrated. I’ve heard
it referred to as the “Perfect Movie” or the “Best Movie of All-Time”, but I
don’t really think it’s that great. I
saw this film for the first time when I was 15-years-old with my grandfather,
and I was pretty excited to see if it lived up to all the hype, and I didn’t
like it. I remember thinking to myself
that I was probably too young to understand it, and that when I was older I
would probably really like it. My Freshman
year of college my suite mates said they were having a “Godfather” movie
watching party, so once again I got all hyped up, I sat through the whole thing
and I still didn’t like it. This past summer
on one of my days off, I sat down in my living room and watched all three
“Godfather” movies in one day. I had
never seen any of the sequels before then, and you know what seeing the sequels
actually helped me enjoy “The Godfather”.
I LOVE “The Godfather Part II”! “The Godfather Part II” is everything to
me that the original “Godfather” film is to everyone else. Again, “The Godfather” is not a bad film; I just think
“Part II” is way better and more enjoyable.
My ranking of the Godfather films goes Part II, the Original, and then
Part III.

2.)“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” is the only movie
that’s ever made me cry.

This is one of those things that
even baffles myself. I have never been,
nor do I consider myself, a fan of “Star Trek”.
I’ve seen a few episodes of the “Original
Star Trek” series and “The Next Generation”, but I never really watched the
show(s) seriously or with that much interest, so as you can imagine I was
surprised to find myself crying at the end of “Star Trek II” when Spock died.
This is not the saddest movie I’ve ever seen, or the only sad movie I have ever
sat through, this is the only film that’s made me cry more than once. I can remember a couple tears running down my
cheeks after I saw “Brian’s Song” for the first time—it is IMPOSSIBLE for any
man to see that film and not get a little bit teary eyed—and my eyes did start
to water a little bit during the climax of the documentary “Dear Zachary”, but
“Star Trek II” is the only film that’s ever made me shed tears, have snot running
out of my nose, and everything else.
I’ve seen this film three times in my life and each time when Spock dies
and Captain Kirk gives his eulogy, and they send him off while Scottie plays
“Amazing Grace” on the bagpipes it get’s me going every time.

3.)To this day there are only two films that I’ve sat
through and written reviews for that I refuse to post on my blog.

When I first started this blog
there were a number of different films that I “swore off”—insisting that I
would never watch or review them—but as time went on, I saw most of those films
and if you can sit through films like “Cannibal Holocaust”, “A Serbian Film”,
and “Antichrist” in just one sitting, you’re practically immune to ever being
afraid of sitting through a movie. When
I watch a film for the first time I take notes while watching the film and
after I look at the notes I compiled and then I decide on whether or not I have
enough material to write a decent review.
There’s maybe been about a dozen films that I’ve watched for this blog
that I haven’t written a review for, and it’s mostly due to the fact that I
believed I didn’t have enough material or critiques to write a decent
review. To this day, however, I’ve only
written two reviews for films that I’ve watched, and I decided that it was in
the best interest of not only myself, but the well being of this blog, and the
readers of my blog to not post them.
You’re all going to hate me for this next part, but I will not tell you
the titles of these two films, not because the films were bad--they were both
really good--but I do believe that each films content should only be seen by
certain audiences and I would not want some of my younger readers to look up
these films and watch them on their own. I will tell you this much, one was a
horror film, and the other was a drama, and the reason why I decided I couldn’t
post them because they dealt with some “sensitive material and issues”, and I
personally felt like I was not the most qualified or professional person to
discuss the films subject matters. I can
also tell you, I was going to post the horror review and two days before I was
going to do so, something tragic happened, and this event was very similar to
the plot I was going to review, and without hesitation I decided not to publish
the post, and wrote another film review to take its place.

4.)The Best and Worst Acting Performances I have ever
seen in film.

Anthony Perkins as "Norman Bates"

Best Acting Performance by Male: Anthony
Perkins as Norman Bates in “Psycho”. I
love this movie; this is hands down one of my favorite horror films, and I
think a large reason of why I like it so much is the acting performance give by
Anthony Perkins. True, by today’s
standards the film isn’t all that scary
and the ending isn’t all that shocking;
hell even I accurately predicted the ending to the film the first time I saw it,
but my gosh Anthony Perkin’s is fantastic in this film. His character was largely influenced by
American Serial Killer Ed Gein, and for the time this film was made, this was
not an easy role to play. Anthony
Perkins is playing a psychotic murderer, who struggles to hide behind the mask
of sanity in the company of other people.
His monologues in the film are fantastic and they’ll just send a chill
through your spine, and for those of you wondering if I’ve seen the “remake” of
the film, my answer is no, and I don’t ever plan on seeing it. Why? Because I think the remake of “Psycho”
will make me want to go “Psycho” on a few actors and film crews.

Sigourney Weaver in "Snow Cake

Best Acting Performance by a Female: Sigourney
Weaver as Linda Freeman in “Snow Cake”.
Not many people have heard of this film.
To be perfectly honest, when one of my friends tried to get me watch it
I was thinking up excuses in my mind as to why I didn’t want to watch it. I thought the movie was going to suck, but it
was awesome. Sigourney Weaver’s
character is autistic and her daughter is killed in a car crash, and the driver
of the car her daughter was in (played by Alan Rickman) stays with Sigourney
Weaver’s character to help arrange her daughters funeral and help her adjust to
now having to be on her own. The way
Sigourney Weaver Plays her character in the film is perfect. She’s not over-the-top, she isn’t dumbing
down her character, her performance is actually pretty believable. If you really want to see why Sigourney
Weaver is great in this film, then see “Snow Cake”.

Seth Green (L) & Macaulay Culkin (R)! WTF?!?!?!

WORST ACTING PERFOMANCE: Macaulay
Culkin & Seth Green in “Party Monster”. Again, just to clarify: when I say
this is the worst acting performance I’ve seen, I’m not talking about some
unknown actor/actress who was in low budget, straight to video crap fest made
in the 1970’s-1980’s.I am talking about
the worst acting performance I’ve seen done by professional and credible
actors, and Macaulay Culkin & Seth Green in the early 2000’s film “Party
Monsters” is the worst I’ve seen.You
know how “Bros” talk and act when they pretend that they’re gay; picture that
going on screen for 90 minutes.Both
Culkin & Green’s characters were based off of two gay club promoters in New
York in the 1990’s, and they just overplayed and stereotyped the hell of their
roles, and it’s just bad.I like Culkin
& Green in films where they play a wise cracking supporting character, but
the two of them as leading actors are just obnoxious and un-entertaining.

5.)I don’t know how “Burn After Reading” ends

Yep, still don't know :)

This is probably my most
embarrassing confession, but yeah, I really don’t know how “Burn After Reading
Ends”. I saw this film when it came out
in theaters with a few of my friends, and when the film got to the part where George
Clooney’s character found Brad Pitt’s character hiding in the closet and shot
him in the head made me jump in my seat and shout Holy Crap! It wasn’t like a bullet just entered Pitt’s
head and left a small hole on his forehead; his head freaking exploded! I don’t know why but I was surprised and in
disbelief of what I saw on the big screen, but that’s all me and my friends
could talk about for the rest of the film.
I actually remember a lot of people in the theatre getting mad at me and
my friends because we just rambled on and on about how Brad Pitt’s head
exploded on screen. We rambled on about
it for so long that we totally missed the ending of the film. Once the credits started rolling and the
lights came back on, we all just sat their wondering how we missed the ending
of the film, and of course we never bothered to ask anyone in the theatre how
the movie ended because we weren’t sure how made som of the people sitting near
us had gotten, and for some reason or another I have never gotten around to
watching it on DVD. Part of me wants to
find out what happened in the end, but then there’s the strange part of me,
that likes how I don’t know how the movie ends because it just contributes to
the mystery of the film.

Well there you Have it: 5 Actual Confessions of a Film
Junkie. I hope you all enjoyed them and
maybe learned something’s about me.
Maybe if I can think up 5 new things, I’ll do an editon of “5 More
Actual Confessions of a Film Junkie”?
Until Next time, Take Care. J